Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Arschbombe wrote:
Interesting to see so many pointing to 5th edition as the go to edition for oldhammer. It was my favorite too. However, I went back to it once a few years ago and found it wasn't as cool as I had remembered. My opponent had the same reaction and our oldhammer effort died right then and there.

.

Like others have said it wasn't perfect. it needed some tweaks

Some great rules existed in other editions that should have been in the 5th edition core rules set.

From my topic on the subject these are the rules we put in from the other editions

1.rapid fire weapon rules (6th/7th)-being able to fire a single shot at full range even when moving
2.snap fire(6th/7th) for heavy weapons and vehicle weapons including when stunned/shaken(but not moving flat out)
3.new weapon profiles(grav etc..)(6th/7th)
4.overwatch(6th/7th)
5.objective secure-troops choice(6th/7th)
6.CCW AP value(6th/7th)
7.grenade throwing(6th/7th)
8.fearless-no LD checks(3rd)
9.3+ reserves(6th/7th)
10.no hull points-5th ed glance/pen chart only
11.flyer rules(5th/forge world flyer rules)-jump units can assault, -12" range penalty for guns, immobilize result= destroyed-this is a combination of 7th flyer rules and 3rd-5th forgeworld flyer rules.
12.All AA units can choose to fire skyfire or ground fire(5th) at the start of the shooting phase
13.4th edition vehicle assault rules-to-hit +armor facing= auto/4+/6+=not move/move up to 6"/move over 6"
14.6th edition smash for MCs(half attacks rounded up max S 10)
15. independent characters can fight separate in CC(counts as separate battle)-just the 5th edition rule-no look out sir etc...
16.D/macro weapons 5th=auto pen/wound, no cover or armor- invul only/ 1 damage against MCs/instant death non-MCs/ +1 on vehicle damage chart
17.vehicle squads act as talons, can break and act independent but not reform during game.(5th)
18.psyker powers used when in the proper phase(shooting attacks in shooting phase, melee in CC etc..) on LD check/selecting the known powers available at the start of the game as per 5th ed rules-includes all 7th edition disciplines.
-special note-there is no such thing as deny the witch in 5th unless you have a psychic hood or some other gear like null rods, runes of warding etc... you cannot stop these powers
19.snipers-strength 3 always hits on 2+/wounds on 4+/rending on 6+ (3rd/4th)
20.defensive weapons on vehicles-S5 or less do not count as heavy weapons if the vehicle moves at combat speed (and is not stunned/shaken)-4th

It does not require a comprehensive re-write like prohammer (although they are very similar in many ways) but these are the rules we find work very well to enhance 5th ed.

This game as an example was 3.5 khorne berserkers VS 5th ed salamanders with a 7th ed allied cult mechanicus force (allies did exist in 5th but they were very restricted) my scouts were out of frame doing battle with obliterators on the far right corner.

Deadnight wrote:

ccs wrote:

So active players are tuned to the current game, but don't represent the hobby.... Hows that work?

Selective quoting.

Active players don't represent the hobby as a whole.

If you want the full quote; in my experience, playgroups are generally 'active' players and typically tuned into the current 'game'. Thing is, they don't represent the hobby as a whole.

I don't see what makes this controversial, or worthy of being picked out and picked apart.

Lots of people play lots of variations of the game and/or involve themselves in some, or many and varied aspects of the hobby for lots of different reasons. Lots of people also either don't play anymore, don't play very often or used to play, or aren't interested in how the game is now, but still involve themselves in the hobby, or else at the very least, keep an eye on it.

In my experience active players (you know, people more heavily involved in clubs, flgs's tournaments and generally players outside of the 'basement scene') tend to be tuned in to the current edition more so than home brews or former editions. This is not a critical or a negative statement by the way.

Stands to reason to me that folks who would be willing to play earlier editions would more likely be drawn from those not actively involved in and embracing the current edition.

There's a bigger pool of fish out there than the 'active' scene.

ccs wrote:

And in-active/former players are more likely to play previous editions - but once they start doing that, don't they become active?

Nice word play. , But it also completely misses the point.

ccs wrote:

Who exactly represents this hobby?

Everyone involved. It's a pretty broad church.

I didn't miss your point, I was making fun of it.

 aphyon wrote:
It does not require a comprehensive re-write like prohammer (although they are very similar in many ways) but these are the rules we find work very well to enhance 5th ed.

I think there are four broad approaches to oldhammer re-writes.
1) Pick and choose rules - taking what worked from each edition
2) Pick and choose rewrite - re-writing the rules from each edition to try and fix the flaws
3) Simplehammer - trimming back to a more streamline 3rd-5th edition, no overwatch, flyers, squadrons, few rerolls, etc
4) Pointshammer - re-pointing an edition with few or no rules changes

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
Interesting to see so many pointing to 5th edition as the go to edition for oldhammer. It was my favorite too. However, I went back to it once a few years ago and found it wasn't as cool as I had remembered. My opponent had the same reaction and our oldhammer effort died right then and there.

5E has its own set of sins to answer for, it's just a smaller list than the other editions. It's probably the most functional core ruleset for the widest array of factions, and the one I'd probably pick if I had to, but it was by no means perfect and the codex meta wasn't particularly well balanced either.

Ehhhhhhhh, gonna have to disagree there. 5th has core rules issues, almost every single issue with 3rd is a codex issue.

 aphyon wrote:


Like others have said it wasn't perfect. it needed some tweaks

I know. It was not a perfect edition by any stretch, but it's when I had the most fun in 40k. So it was a little jarring to find that it wasn't as fun as we remembered. You start to wonder, "why did we enjoy this back then?" We had been out of the GW hobby for a few years playing other things, primarily X-wing. I think the stark contrast between the quality of the FFG rules and the GW rules was a part of our dissatisfaction. We still enjoyed the models and lore, but felt the juice wasn't worth the squeeze for the gameplay especially since we had other games we could play. And yet, if 7th edition had never come out, we might have stayed in the 40k bubble and never picked up X-wing in the first place.

 aphyon wrote:

Like others have said [5th] wasn't perfect. it needed some tweaks

Some great rules existed in other editions that should have been in the 5th edition core rules set.

From my topic on the subject these are the rules we put in from the other editions

1. ...
2. ...
...
20. ...

Aphyon and I were remarking how much similarity his rules have vs ProHammer. He's been testing his more regularly, and ProHammer will need more tuning.

While there is a lot of overlap, there are some notable differences:

4. ProHammer overwatch is more of classic overwatch like in 2nd edition - not an automatic thing like in 6th+ (but there are restrictions)
10. Vehicle damage charts are a modified version of 4th - separate glancing and penetrating tables
11. Flyer rules are a straight adaption from 6th, but modified to be in line with other vehicle changes
18. Adds in a basic deny the witch rule, but ONLY if the affected enemy contains an opposing psyker. Pshychic hoods and what not extend the range of this effect.

"Cleanuphammer" is another option.
Looking at the areas where the rules sort of bloopered up, patching those, then finding ways to streamline and pare down the bloat.

I admit to a certain degree of 'maximalism', and am a strong proponent of kitbash, your dudes, etc. So things like 'universal-access' wargear cards, the 3.5 Chaos Codex, Lost and the Damned, etc. get my attention. Things like Warhammer Legends alongside GW only making rules (or removing rules) to line up exactly with that their box-sets contain=bleh. If I want mono-loadout units...that's what Warmachine/Hordes is for. So what I would end up doing is taking the superset of all the options from every edition from early 4th to late 7th and pare down.

Consolidating USRs is one start. First is 'formatting' of course. Things like "Zealot grants a unit Hatred and Fearless' should be deleted, and replaced with Hatred&Fearless, as IIRC there was only one Warlord Trait for Word Bearers that proc'd off a unit 'already having Zealot' (instead of Hatred and Fearless). Yes, that would mean that Monstrous Creatures would have Fear, Hammer of Wrath, Smash, Very Bulky, etc. printed on their unit cards. This is an intermediary step though.

The next part is consolidation. Having composite "meta-USRs" can help reduce bloat. For example, having a Grants Unit[X] USR would have it so that attaching a model to another unit would give that unit the benefit of X rule, without having the need for a * qualifier. Thus, rather than having a scenario like "A unit of White Scars has Hit&Run so long as it is entirely composed of models that innately have Hit&Run," you could have some units have Hit&Run, and some special leaders have Grants Unit[Hit&Run]. This would also allow Camo Cloaks to provide Stealth(+1 Cover Save) without a single Lord Commissar providing Stealth to a combined guard of 50 Guardsmen, rather than a Camo Cloak granting a +1 cover save that was not Stealth or Shrouded, and thus could not be countered by an Eldar Warlock casting Reveal!

Once the 'redundant' USRs are rolled up and the appropriate framework of meta-USRs provided, the rest is rolling up the grand list of 'bespoke rules' into USRs. I find it amusing that there was no USR for 'fire an extra weapon' in the BRB despite the numerous units with bespoke-named rules for this. Think of it:

More Dakka[X]: A model with More Dakka[X] can shoot with X additional weapons on its profile per phase it is allowed to shoot. A model with More Dakka[!] may shoot with ALL weapons on its profile.

Thus, "Multitrackers", "Decimation Protocols", "Heavy Battle Servitor", etc. could all be replaced with "More Dakka[1]," while most Monstrous Creatures would have it as a matter of course.

These changes have all been formatting-related thus far, and have not really dealt with the actual balance of the game. However, 7th had a LOT of balance issues and a lot of trap options (Khorne Daemonkin had the nickname Codex: Gorepack, not because the Gorepack was awesome, but because it was the only Formation that wasn't 100% rubbish. Tau had the Riptide Wing.). Ultimately, there were 'three' popular houserules to curb on the worst of 7th.

-ITC removed "Deathblow" from Destroyer Weapons, because turning 40k into a singular game of Russian Roulette was not fun. Alas, it did not do a similar change for Stomp or Thunderblitz IIRC (though Thunderblitz was less of an issue due to the relatively restricted threat range and weaker chart).
-ITC changed Invisibility from "Units can only snapshoot/melee on 6s vs an Invisible Unit" to "resolve attacks as WS/BS1", thus allowing AOEs to 'function' versus them.
-The third one varied from formats, but the Screamerstar became a notably deadly unit in tournament formats involving objectives/board control due to the "rerollable 2+ Invulnerable Save." The ruling varied from tournament to tournament (IIRC, Nova had it that an Invulnerable Reroll could only be on a 4+ at best), but the other implementation was that "An Invulnerable Save that does not start at 2++ cannot be improved to 2++ unless a power explicitly allows this." 3++ rerollable could be overcome with torrent of fire, while 2++ rerollable...yeah.

Ultimately, the 'arms race' between durability, cost, and firepower was such that 7th was a game where multishot midstrength options (for infantry-killing or stripping hullpoints) were the optimal choice, with a few D or other 'specialty' tools for dealing with defense skew, while many "Strength 8/9" weapons like Missile Launchers/Lascannons were left in an awkward middle-space with relatively little purpose: It was not like they could destroy vehicles more reliably than grav/Hi-Yield Missile Pods/Scatter Lasers. It was not like they could bring the weight of fire to overcome defensive techs. They could perhaps scare a Bike player into Jinking for a round or so...

8th tried to skirt this issue by replacing hullpoints with wounds, upping the overall wound counts, and making weapons have damage profiles. This has its ups and downs; on one hand, it streamlines things and gets rid of Instant Death. On the other hand, it leads to questions like whether Heavy Bolters are 'more consistent' than missile launchers at damaging Land Raiders...I am personally ok with either tweaking the 'old' vehicle facings, or switching to a toughness mechanic as needed, and removing "Instant Death" (or instant-explodes" with doing more damage instead. Ultimately, that's a 'resolution mechanic' rather than something for later editions.

This said, I would want to tweak 'how vehicles work' as the 8th/9th ed system where they 'charge' feels off. Yes, that means looking at Tank Shock and Ramming again. It was rather silly that a Warbuggy could 'stop' a Land Raider in its tracks, but a Rhino could instakill a Stormsurge and so this brings up whether or not units should have a "Size" rating rather than special rules like "Bulky/Very Bulky/MASSIVE". Frankly, this would probably be simplest to accomplish by adapting the Trample rules from Warmahordes, or 2nd ed Ramming to whichever resolution mechanic this 'retrohammer' mashup has, and making it so that sufficiently bulky things like Terminators or Bullgryns are harder to shift than things like Guardsmen or Gretchin; it wouldn't hurt to allow certain Monstrous Creatures the ability to attempt to "tankshock through roadblocks as well, such as Carnifexes attempting to break through a line of throwaway Conscripts.

(Insert more things about derandomizing Warlord Traits/Psychic Powers, 'opening up' wargear loadouts, etc. This is a long rant that can go on for ages).

Arschbombe wrote:

 aphyon wrote:


Like others have said it wasn't perfect. it needed some tweaks

I know. It was not a perfect edition by any stretch, but it's when I had the most fun in 40k. So it was a little jarring to find that it wasn't as fun as we remembered. You start to wonder, "why did we enjoy this back then?" We had been out of the GW hobby for a few years playing other things, primarily X-wing. I think the stark contrast between the quality of the FFG rules and the GW rules was a part of our dissatisfaction. We still enjoyed the models and lore, but felt the juice wasn't worth the squeeze for the gameplay especially since we had other games we could play. And yet, if 7th edition had never come out, we might have stayed in the 40k bubble and never picked up X-wing in the first place.

Aside from classic battletech and B5 wars up until around 6th edition 40K was my main game, at that point 40K killed itself, since it was so bad i started playing games other than 40K branching out into the at the time new infinity game. this led to building a smallish flames of war army(never really stuck with it), warmachine and forces for victory at sea, DUST and others. the ability to experience other systems is both enlightening and puts 40K into the context of a certain style of wargame that makes it unique to play in it's own way.

Mezmorki wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Like others have said [5th] wasn't perfect. it needed some tweaks

Some great rules existed in other editions that should have been in the 5th edition core rules set.

From my topic on the subject these are the rules we put in from the other editions

1. ...
2. ...
...
20. ...

Aphyon and I were remarking how much similarity his rules have vs ProHammer. He's been testing his more regularly, and ProHammer will need more tuning.

While there is a lot of overlap, there are some notable differences:

4. ProHammer overwatch is more of classic overwatch like in 2nd edition - not an automatic thing like in 6th+ (but there are restrictions)
10. Vehicle damage charts are a modified version of 4th - separate glancing and penetrating tables
11. Flyer rules are a straight adaption from 6th, but modified to be in line with other vehicle changes
18. Adds in a basic deny the witch rule, but ONLY if the affected enemy contains an opposing psyker. psychic hoods and what not extend the range of this effect.

1.I don't want classic overwatch ala 2nd in the game as it goes against the streamlined play that was created via the 3rd ed changes to gameplay. if i want something like that better implemented i play DUST or infinty
2.the damage chart in 4th was the same as hull points in 6th to me as it made vehicles paper tigers(unless you were a skimmer) the rise in the options for AT work in units from 5th ed more than balanced out the more realistic resilience of the vehicle damage table in 5th.
3. i prefer the feel of the FW rules better, but their activation system where aircraft moved in during your opponents movement phase really broke the flow of the game. so combining the 2 seems to work better in my experience.
4 that's one point i am firm on. non psykers should have no ability to stop a psyker unless they are given something that can counter it rather it be the brass collar of khorne or some other mitigating factor like eldar runes of warding. it may be because of my history with playing DnD. a non wizard cannot just say ignore that fireball your wizard just cast at me because i want to. however if i have a magic item that grants me a shield that's another story.

The other nice thing about the rules we use is that they are not made up by us, they actually already existed in the game in print and are easy to reference as well as often already known by the players. but you are correct as i noted previous players tend to figure out how to fix the GW screw-ups often finding very similar intuitive solutions.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Hull points changed the way vehicles interacted with AT weapons and other units in general for the much-worse.

I only somewhat disagree. What made it be worse is how few Hull Points were assigned and how easy it was to remove them. If they gave out Hull Points like Monstrous Creatures had Wounds, it wouldn't have been so bad. If it required Penetrating Hits to remove Hull Points, it wouldn't have been so bad. The two combined made it a total crap show, though.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Lords of War were added to the game

More like were allowed to show up in smaller games without as much special arrangement. They already existed when people allowed Forge World rules or through Battle Missions.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Allies were added to the game

Allies already existed, but were just limited to the Imperium through the 'hunter codices. 6th Edition just allowed others to participate.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Flyers were added to the game with their snap-shots rule

Much like the Lords of War, Flyers were still around, just not generally available without special arrangement. I do believe the Snap Shot rules were new, but not a bad idea, overall.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
And over time, monstrous creatures proliferated from being the Tyranids and that one Grey Knight thing [which is another "should have been a vehicle that's a little older than the Riptide] to being more common ultimate units that were somewhere between a true super heavy and whatever the biggest thing was before.

And now you made Chaos and Eldar cry. They had Monstrous Creatures before the Grey Knights did.

And as silly as Tau's Monstrous Creatures are (and the Grey Knights' one has been mocked far more), they are a logical response to those big lugs if you have a battlesuit fetish.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
For the most part, none of these things would go away if we went back in time, and people will still want to use them, which in addition to the flaws of the edition [wound allocation I remember clearly being a problem] really kills any attempt to go back.

And then there's the disagreements about what exactly is a flaw and needs fixing. I consider the general case vehicle interaction with antitank weapons an upside, because I like tanks and guns and my aspiration for a 40k game is to look like a Flames of War game. I know at least one person who would rather play a skirmish scale game without heavy units beyond armored transports at all, and to him the general trend towards tankhammer of the time was a problem.

And of course, this brings in the issue with making a homebrew system to fix problems, which is that everybody really wants different things out of the game.

There is a lot of truth in that on so many fronts.